A Hollywood party at Ciro's. Brave Finns face the peace, a wounded nation pulls itself together, Finland. Nice Coca-Cola ad on back cover in color with soda fountain and press man. Please share this magazine with friends Add to Wish List. Table of Contents. Topographic maps , United States Maps.
Nation awaits Wendell Willkie's report on his triumphant invasion of England. President's silent reporter in Britain. Harry Lloyd Hopkins American diplomat. Only those who wear them may enter U. British army storms Bardia and collects Italian equipment. World War, Campaigns and battles, Africa.
Shoe fair features casual styles inspired by U. American century. World War, United States , Internationalism. Betty Carstairs' island. Winter at Yaphank. Behavior of ants. Maryland coeds demonstrate do's and don't's of campus etiquet. College students , Etiquette.
Your service is outstanding. I have been also looking for … should you ever come across it. Again, I am a very pleased customer and will certainly continue shopping and searching through 2Neat. Life Magazine February 17, - Hollywood quantity. Daughter photographs Mrs. Nemitz as she goes to death in the Pacific, she drowned accidentally on purpose, diabetic nerve pain.
The President of the United States has continually reached for more and more power, and he owes his continuation in office today largely to the coming of the war.
Thus, the fear that the United States will be driven to a national socialism, as a result of cataclysmic circumstances and contrary to the free will of the American people, is an entirely justifiable fear. Much more could be said in amplification, in qualification, and in argument. But, however elaborately they might be stated, the sum of the facts about our present position brings us to this point — that the paramount question of this immediate moment is not whether we get into war but how do we win it?
If we are in a war, then it is no little advantage to be aware of the fact. And once we admit to ourselves we are in a war, there is no shadow of doubt that we Americans will be determined to win it — cost what it may in life or treasure. Whether or not we declare war, whether or not we send expeditionary forces abroad, whether or not we go bankrupt in the process — all these tremendous considerations are matters of strategy and management and are secondary to the overwhelming importance of winning the war.
Having now, with candor, examined our position, it is time to consider, to better purpose than would have been possible before, the larger issue which confronts us. Stated most simply, and in general terms, that issue is: What are we fighting for?
Each of us stands ready to give our life, our wealth, and all our hope of personal happiness, to make sure that America shall not lose any war she is engaged in. But we would like to know what war we are trying to win — and what we are supposed to win when we win it. This questioning reflects our truest instincts as Americans. But more than that. Our urgent desire to give this war its proper name has a desperate practical importance. Furthermore — and this is an extraordinary and profoundly historical fact which deserves to be examined in detail — America and only America can effectively state the war aims of this war.
Therefore, even if Britain should from time to time announce war aims, the American people are continually in the position of effectively approving or not approving those aims. On the contrary, if America were to announce war aims, Great Britain would almost certainly accept them. And the entire world including Adolf Hitler would accept them as the gauge of this battle. Whatever sense there may have been in this notion in the past, today it is an ignorant and foolish conception of the situation.
In any sort of partnership with the British Empire, Great Britain is perfectly willing that the United States of America should assume the role of senior partner. This has been true for a long time. Among serious Englishmen, the chief complaint against America and incidentally their best alibi for themselves has really amounted to this — that America has refused to rise to the opportunities of leadership in the world.
The center of gravity and the ultimate decision must increasingly lie in America. We cannot resent this historical development. We may rather feel proud that the cycle of dependence, enmity and independence is coming full circle into a new interdependence.
With due regard for the varying problems of the members of the British Commonwealth, what we want will be okay with them. This holds true even for that inspiring proposal called Union Now — a proposal, made by an American, that Britain and the United States should create a new and larger federal union of peoples. That may not be the right approach to our problem. The big, important point to be made here is simply that the complete opportunity of leadership is ours. Like most great creative opportunities, it is an opportunity enveloped in stupendous difficulties and dangers.
Admittedly, the future of the world cannot be settled all in one piece. It is stupid to try to blueprint the future as you blueprint an engine or as you draw up a constitution for a sorority. We fight no wars except our wars. But today we must be the arsenal of America and of the friends and allies of America. But how can we tell them? And how can we tell ourselves for what purposes we seek allies and for what purposes we fight?
Are we going to fight for dear old Danzig or dear old Dong Dang? Are we going to decide the boundaries of Uritania? Or, if we cannot state war aims in terms of vastly distant geography, shall we use some big words like Democracy and Freedom and Justice?
Yes, we can use the big words. The President has already used them. And perhaps we had better get used to using them again. Maybe they do mean something -about the future as well as the past. Some amongst us are likely to be dying for them — on the fields and in the skies of battle. Either that, or the words themselves and what they mean die with us — in our beds. But is there nothing between the absurd sound of distant cities and the brassy trumpeting of majestic words?
And if so, whose Dong Dang and whose Democracy? Is there not something a little more practically satisfying that we can get our teeth into? Is there no sort of understandable program? A program which would be clearly good for America, which would make sense for America — and which at the same time might have the blessing of the Goddess of Democracy and even help somehow to fix up this bothersome matter of Dong Dang?
Is there none such? There is. And so we now come squarely and closely face to face with the issue which Americans hate most to face.
It is that old, old issue with those old, old battered labels -the issue of Isolationism versus Internationalism. We detest both words. We spit them at each other with the fury of hissing geese. We duck and dodge them. Let us face that issue squarely now. If we face it squarely now — and if in facing it we take full and fearless account of the realities of our age — then we shall open the way, not necessarily to peace in our daily lives but to peace in our hearts.
Life is made up of joy and sorrow, of satisfactions and difficulties. In this time of trouble, we speak of troubles. There are many troubles. There are troubles in the field of philosophy, in faith and morals. There are troubles of home and family, of personal life.
All are interrelated but we speak here especially of the troubles of national policy. In the field of national policy, the fundamental trouble with America has been, and is, that whereas their nation became in the 20th Century the most powerful and the most vital nation in the world, nevertheless Americans were unable to accommodate themselves spiritually and practically to that fact.
Hence they have failed to play their part as a world power — a failure which has had disastrous consequences for themselves and for all mankind.
And the cure is this: to accept wholeheartedly our duty and our opportunity as the most powerful and vital nation in the world and in consequence to exert upon the world the full impact of our influence, for such purposes as we see fit and by such means as we see fit.
Emphatically our only alternative to isolationism is not to undertake to police the whole world nor to impose democratic institutions on all mankind including the Dalai Lama and the good shepherds of Tibet. America cannot be responsible for the good behavior of the entire world. But America is responsible, to herself as well as to history, for the world environment in which she lives. It is most unfortunate that this virus of isolationist sterility has so deeply infected an influential section of the Republican Party.
And its participation is deeply needed for the shaping of the future of America and of the world. He was more of an isolationist than Herbert Hoover or Calvin Coolidge. The fact that Franklin Roosevelt has recently emerged as an emergency world leader should not obscure the fact that for seven years his policies ran absolutely counter to any possibility of effective American leadership in international co-operation. It can be said, with reason, that great social reforms were necessary in order to bring democracy up-to-date in the greatest of democracies.
But the fact is that Franklin Roosevelt failed to make American democracy work successfully on a narrow, materialistic and nationalistic basis. And under Franklin Roosevelt we ourselves have failed to make democracy work successfully. Our only chance now to make it work is in terms of a vital international economy and in terms of an international moral order.
Without our help he cannot be our greatest President. With our help he can and will be. Under him and with his leadership we can make isolationism as dead an issue as slavery, and we can make a truly American internationalism something as natural to us in our time as the airplane or the radio. In we had a golden opportunity, an opportunity unprecedented in all history, to assume the leadership of the world — a golden opportunity handed to us on the proverbial silver platter.
We did not understand that opportunity. Wilson mishandled it. We rejected it. The opportunity persisted. To lead the world would never have been an easy task. To revive the hope of that lost opportunity makes the task now infinitely harder than it would have been before. Nevertheless, with the help of all of us, Roosevelt must succeed where Wilson failed. Consider the 20th Century. So far, this century of ours has been a profound and tragic disappointment.
No other century has been so big with promise for human progress and happiness. And in no one century have so many men and women and children suffered such pain and anguish and bitter death. It is a baffling and difficult and paradoxical century. No doubt all centuries were paradoxical to those who had to cope with them. But, like everything else, our paradoxes today are bigger and better than ever. Yes, better as well as bigger — inherently better.
We have poverty and starvation — but only in the midst of plenty. We have the biggest wars in the midst of the most widespread, the deepest and the most articulate hatred of war in all history. We have tyrannies and dictatorships — but only when democratic idealism, once regarded as the dubious eccentricity of a colonial nation, is the faith of a huge majority of the people of the world.
And ours is also a revolutionary century. The paradoxes make it inevitably revolutionary. Revolutionary, of course, in science and in industry. And also revolutionary, as a corollary in politics and the structure of society. But to say that a revolution is in progress is not to say that the men with either the craziest ideas or the angriest ideas or the most plausible ideas are going to come out on top.
The Revolution of was won and established by men most of whom appear to have been both gentlemen and men of common sense. Clearly a revolutionary epoch signifies great changes, great adjustments. For only as we go out to meet and solve for our time the problems of the world revolution, can we know how to re-establish our constitutional democracy for another 50 or years.
This 20th Century is baffling, difficult, paradoxical, revolutionary. But by now, at the cost of much pain and many hopes deferred, we know a good deal about it. And we ought to accommodate our outlook to this knowledge so dearly bought.
0コメント